The Political Lens: What Global Warming and Wright v. New York Have in Common
During the 2003-2004 school year, my chemistry teacher told my class that global warming wasn’t occurring. I believed her. When I attended New Jersey’s Governor’s School of International Studies in the summer of 2005, a professor told me the opposite – the evidence for global warming, and for the human contribution to it, was virtually incontrovertible. Confused about what to think, I began to research the issue. I also reached out to some of my other former teachers to ask for their input.
Three things became immediately clear. First, most popular articles about global warming contained more empty rhetoric than useful information. The mainstream media, as it far too frequently does, focused not on the truth but on grandstanding and a false sense of balance. Second, I didn’t know enough climate science to look through a given study’s results and determine their legitimacy. Third, I didn’t have to – a different approach could tell me everything I needed to know about each study’s likely veracity.
Global warming research falls into two categories: research by legitimate scientists and “research” funded by big energy interests. Legitimate scientists, who have no economic incentive to lie, conclude that global warming is a manmade crisis deserving our immediate action. The few studies that suggest otherwise are normally sponsored by organizations like Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute, interest groups with billions of dollars invested in the activity responsible for global warming.
As with global warming, knowledge of the individual and organizational incentives behind opposing “sides” of any debate provides us with critical information. This “political lens,” though not completely foolproof, reminds us that certain claims deserve a larger dose of skepticism than others. The agendas behind a movement are especially important to consider when we lack in-depth knowledge of a particular issue.
In education policy debates, “reformers” far too often selectively and inaccurately applythe political lens or dismiss its importance. That dynamic surfaced after Stephen Colbert interviewed former CNN anchor Campbell Brown on July 31. Brown’s organization, Partnership for Educational Justice, had filed Wright v. New York three days before the interview. Wright, modeled after Vergara v. California, challenges several aspects of teacher employment law.
A small group of teachers, parents, and grassroots organizers showed up to protest Brown’s appearance on the show. Colbert, responding to the protesters and the Twitter hashtag #questions4campbell, asked Brown about her organization’s funding sources. Brown refused to disclose her donors. Amidst the criticism that followed, various stakeholders have rushed to Brown’s defense. They continue to argue that a focus on Brown’s donors and political affiliations is a “desperate effort to distract from The Political Lens: What Global Warming and Wright v. New York Have in Common | 34justice: